Thermal characteristics of tubular receivers of solar radiation line concentrators

2013 ◽  
Vol 49 (4) ◽  
pp. 235-240 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sh. I. Klychev ◽  
R. A. Zakhidov ◽  
R. Khuzhanov ◽  
Z. Sh. Klychev ◽  
F. Mukhtarov ◽  
...  
2019 ◽  
Vol 13 (7) ◽  
pp. 1925-1941 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robert Kenner ◽  
Jeannette Noetzli ◽  
Martin Hoelzle ◽  
Hugo Raetzo ◽  
Marcia Phillips

Abstract. Mountain permafrost is invisible, and mapping it is still a challenge. Available permafrost distribution maps often overestimate the permafrost extent and include large permafrost-free areas in their permafrost zonation. In addition, the representation of the lower belt of permafrost consisting of ice-rich features such as rock glaciers or ice-rich talus slopes can be challenging. These problems are caused by considerable differences in genesis and thermal characteristics between ice-poor permafrost, occurring for example in rock walls, and ice-rich permafrost. While ice-poor permafrost shows a strong correlation of ground temperature with elevation and potential incoming solar radiation, ice-rich ground does not show such a correlation. Instead, the distribution of ice-rich ground is controlled by gravitational processes such as the relocation of ground ice by permafrost creep or by ground ice genesis from avalanche deposits or glacierets covered with talus. We therefore developed a mapping method which distinguishes between ice-poor and ice-rich permafrost and tested it for the entire Swiss Alps. For ice-poor ground we found a linear regression formula based on elevation and potential incoming solar radiation which predicts borehole ground temperatures at multiple depths with an accuracy higher than 0.6 ∘C. The zone of ice-rich permafrost was defined by modelling the deposition zones of alpine mass wasting processes. This dual approach allows the cartographic representation of permafrost-free belts, which are bounded above and below by permafrost. This enables a high quality of permafrost modelling, as is shown by the validation of our map. The dominating influence of the two rather simple connected factors, elevation (as a proxy for mean annual air temperature) and solar radiation, on the distribution of ice-poor permafrost is significant for permafrost modelling in different climate conditions and regions. Indicating temperatures of ice-poor permafrost and distinguishing between ice-poor and ice-rich permafrost on a national permafrost map provides new information for users.


2014 ◽  
Vol 79 (706) ◽  
pp. 1037-1047 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hitoshi TAKEDA ◽  
Hirokazu SUZUKI ◽  
Sin HAYAKAWA

2014 ◽  
Vol 899 ◽  
pp. 77-82
Author(s):  
Roman Rabenseifer

Occasionally, there are suggestions from professional public to use the total solar energy transmittance coefficient, g (solar factor), to describe not only transparent, but also opaque structures, particularly with regard to overheating of the under-roof spaces. The standard EN 410:1998 (Glass in building - Determination of luminous and solar characteristics of glazing) introduces the g-value as the sum of primary solar heat gain, g1, due to the transparency of the glazing and the secondary solar heat gain, g2, due to the absorption of solar radiation and its conversion into heat conduction and radiation over the total incident solar heat flux, φe. Nevertheless the value of g1 may have zero or nearly zero value, e.g. in case of non-transparent glass. In addition to it, the standard ISO 15099:2003 (Thermal performance of windows, doors and shading devices - Detailed calculations) introduces equation for calculation of the frame g-value (actually the frame total solar energy transmittance), where window frames are clearly opaque components. What is then the difference between glass and "standard" opaque wall or roof? Why is in the latter case always introduced zero and in the first one some value different from zero? Won't it be practical, especially in time of large existing opportunities of computer use, to implement the use of g-values also in case of ordinary opaque structures and express their resistance to the absorption and conversion of solar radiation and thus overheating the adjacent interior spaces? This paper attempts, using EN ISO 13786 (Thermal performance of building components - Dynamic thermal characteristics - Calculation methods) and computer-aided models of transient heat transfer, to explain why the suggestion of using of the g-value in case of opaque components is not entirely correct and, why priority should be given to the dynamic thermal characteristics specified in this standard.


Author(s):  
Prateek Bandi ◽  
Neeraj Paul Manelil ◽  
M.P. Maiya ◽  
Shaligram Tiwari ◽  
A. Thangamani ◽  
...  

Author(s):  
Cecilia Inés Robles ◽  
Gilda Luciana Vivas ◽  
Monique Halloy

Habitat use and thermal biology are closely related, because thermal microclimates vary spatially. The use of habitat and microhabitat by different species influences many of their traits, such as their physiology, and may, therefore exert a direct effect on survival. Ectothermal animals, such as lizards, are affected by thermal and biophysical environments they inhabit, and the particular use of a given substrate reflects an overlap between thermally adequate microhabitats, and behavioral preferences. By exploiting certain microhabitats and avoiding others, many lizards tend to maintain their body temperature within a range that allows maximum performance. Here, we evaluate how two syntopic species of lizards, Liolaemus pacha and L. ramirezae, use substrates with different exposure to solar radiation. Our hypothesis is that L. pacha uses both soil and rock substrates indistinctly, due to being a generalist species, whereas L. ramirezae uses the rock substrate more frequently, due to its saxicolous habits. We expect temperatures to be different both in substrates, and in different exposures, and thermal characteristics of each species to condition their use. For example, because the body temperature range of L. pacha is wider, we predict that substrate use will be wider. A pre-established 100x75 m area was monitored during four Austral springs and summers between 2011 and 2015, in Los Cardones, Amaicha del Valle, Tucumán, Argentina. Species' substrate where the lizard was found (soil or rock), and exposure to solar radiation: sun, filtered shade or full shade was recorded. After capture, lizard body temperature (Tb), substrate temperature (Ts), and air temperature (Ta) were recorded in the place of the first observation of the lizard. Obtained results show that L. pacha and L. ramirezae had a more persistent use of the rock than the soil substrate, thus considering them saxicolous species. Further, they were frequently observed exposed to direct sunlight. Average body temperature was higher than environmental temperature (Ts and Ta), and significantly different in each exposure type (sun, filtered shade and full shade), and in both substrates (rock and soil). Differential use of substrate and the relationship between body temperature and microhabitat temperatures suggests that L. pacha and L. ramirezae are “active thermoregulators”, using both substrate surfaces and solar radiation as heat sources. 


2010 ◽  
Vol 46 (2) ◽  
pp. 100-103 ◽  
Author(s):  
A. G. Khalimov ◽  
B. E. Khairiddinov ◽  
V. D. Kim ◽  
G. G. Khalimov

Space Weather ◽  
2006 ◽  
Vol 4 (6) ◽  
pp. n/a-n/a ◽  
Author(s):  
Tracy Staedter
Keyword(s):  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document